Washington Redskins Name Controversy

  • Thread starter JMoney
  • 274 comments
  • 11,089 views

Should the name for the NFL team "Washington Redskins" be changed?

  • Yes

    Votes: 23 25.0%
  • No

    Votes: 69 75.0%

  • Total voters
    92
Well then what do you think they should be called?
First of all, that question should be taken up with the people affected/labeled/whatever; not my place to say. I would point out, though, that the majority of the people in question are okay with the term "American Indian"; half of them even prefer it.

And "dinge" isn't a racist term there either, I suppose

Aside from that internet reference I have never, ever heard the term "dingy" used in a remotely racist way.
 
To those bringing up Chief Wahoo, Cleveland's already pretty much phased him out of their look.
 
As long as there are Redskins fans, they'll stay the redskins. The fans pay the bills, and if they want the name, the name stays. It's nobody else's business.

That is, until it starts hurting the NFL.

I would change it to the Washington Pigskins. It's the team of fat politicians in pork barrel land, and the fans already dress up like hogs.

That, or the Washington Pretzels. Before you say that's a sissy name, remember that a pretzel almost choked out the President of the United States. It's tough. And it fits in the fight song. "Hail to the pretzels!" And the team would be Mr. Snyder's pretzels.
 
Although I personally do not find the Redskins to be an offensive name, I can understand why some do. At the heart of the matter is the harsh treatment received by the native Americans at the hands of the colonists throughout the whole Manifest Destiny period. Scholars have debated how close to genocide this mistreatment has been. You can read what they say and judge for yourself. The sheer numbers are also in dispute. Scholarly estimates of the peak native population of North America at the time of Columbus have been all over the map, ranging wildly from 10 million to 100 million. Some time ago, there was sort of a concencus at 50 million, but 30 million looks more appropriate today. What is not in dispute is that the native American population did shrink down to perilously close to 1 million, a truly massive collapse which prompts cries of genocide, or at least some kind of gross abuse or mistreatment. Some may wish to blow it all off on simple vulnerability to European diseases, plus some alcoholism. Scholars can debate, but by and large, the native suffered greatly with the coming of the colonists. Apologies have been offered, and peace exists now, even though there may be a case to be made for further redress. I will not make that case, but I wouldn't mind if the name of the team was changed to the Washington Senators, a name formerly carried by the major league baseball team which Washington, D.C. lost a number of years ago.
 
Dingy-At-Sea.jpg


Omg, you are such a rubber boat.


Close but no cigar, that's a dinghy, completely different word/sound. "Dingy" is an old word for "dark" that mostly survives (at least in my experience here) as "dinge", a racist term for someone with dark skin.
 
Close but no cigar, that's a dinghy, completely different word/sound. "Dingy" is an old word for "dark" that mostly survives (at least in my experience here) as "dinge", a racist term for someone with dark skin.
Are you sure this isn't like a "niggardly" sort of thing where people just flip out and assume you said something racist? I've literally never heard that word.
 
They have a great chance to change it to something awesome, like the Washington Avalanchers. Their unifirm could be a light, light blue with the numbers and pants being a shiny silver. The helmets could be shiny silver with a light blue mountain with an a fitting around it. Or the name could be the Washington Knights. The jersey and pants would look like the armor knight's helmet. The cleats would be like armor, too.
 
Last edited:
Aside from that internet reference I have never, ever heard the term "dingy" used in a remotely racist way.

I've heard dingy as a common adjective in a dark, dank context e.g. a "dingy bar on the outskirts of town" but never as a slur.

I'm clearly in a minority... which is why you're all picking on me!!! :D :D

And I like that bar.

I've heard the word "dinge" used quite a lot in a racist context, I'm glad that it's not more widespread. I've never ever heard of dinge in any other context. Ding-y, yes.

Are you sure this isn't like a "niggardly" sort of thing where people just flip out and assume you said something racist?

I'm sure of the definition, but I take your point.

First of all, that question should be taken up with the people affected/labeled/whatever; not my place to say. I would point out, though, that the majority of the people in question are okay with the term "American Indian"; half of them even prefer it.

That's quite right, and part of the difficulty. As a 'group' of intelligent, free-thinking individuals there's as much disagreement within as without. That aside; I still think "redskins" is an archaic term. We wouldn't use the "niggardly"-a-like word any more despite it having been perfectly acceptable to a large and particular section of society historically.

They have a great chance to change it to something awesome, like the Washington Avalanchers. Their unifirm could be a light, light blue with the numbers and pants being a shiny silver. The helmets could be shiny silver with a light blue mountain with an a fitting around it.

You've really put some work into this :D
 
I've heard the word "dinge" used quite a lot in a racist context, I'm glad that it's not more widespread. I've never ever heard of dinge in any other context. Ding-y, yes.
Until today I don't believe I've ever come across the term "dinge", as opposed to "dingy" which I've heard (and used) quite a lot.

I've also come across dinghies, and have even been aboard them on occasion.

None of this ever in connection to race. Well, except for the dinghy race we had this one time.


But I'd say if the team and fans are okay with the name, then leave it Redskins. Change it to something else, one of the names listed here or one not on the list, and somebody somewhere will be butthurt over it.
 
At the heart of this is probably a few people making money, and quite a few people defeating their own cause.

We'll be closer to racial harmony when the majority are indifferent towards difference, and not when we've painstakingly gone through and destroyed every potentially offensive word, action, event, etc. I think we need to be less sensitised, less in-sensitised, and more de-sensitised towards many things, including race.

In recent years, more and more, the descendants of the original inhabitants of Australia have been called Indigenous rather than Aboriginal. It appears that many view it as the more "respectful" term to use. As a response though I heard a notable representative opening an event - she said "First of all...... we're Aboriginal, not Indigenous" I thought..... "THEY'RE THE SAME BLOODY THING!!!!!!". Those words are literally synonymous.

And that's what it amounts to to me - people making something out of nothing.
 
When it comes to indigenous people, it boils down to personal choice. Some people like to be referred to as "indigenous people", while others refer to "aboriginal".

Well, if they wanted a name that still carries some history they could go with the Senators, they briefly existed as an NFL team in 1921. Of course if you don't like that there are plenty of other choices just using the government as inspiration, I'll even give a few examples.

Commanders (my personal choice)
Presidents
Bombers
Americans
I think part of the resistance to changing a team name is that it changes the identity - and so if you're going to do it, you have to pick a name that fits either the culture of the team, the home city, or both. A silly choice or a generic name could damage the brand. When you really think about it, some of our football teams have very silly names, like the Sydney Swans (AFL), South Sydney Rabbits (NRL), NSW Waratahs (rugby union) and the Melbourne Heart (A-League). But the names work because they reflect the culture - the Swans like to emphasise a fluid, elegant game, for instance, while Collingwood Magpies supporters are easily distracted by shiny things.

If the Redskins were to change their name, it would be easy to pick an aggressive, animalistic name - like Sharks or Dragons - and compromise the team identity.
 
When it comes to indigenous people, it boils down to personal choice. Some people like to be referred to as "indigenous people", while others refer to "aboriginal".


I think part of the resistance to changing a team name is that it changes the identity - and so if you're going to do it, you have to pick a name that fits either the culture of the team, the home city, or both. A silly choice or a generic name could damage the brand. When you really think about it, some of our football teams have very silly names, like the Sydney Swans (AFL), South Sydney Rabbits (NRL), NSW Waratahs (rugby union) and the Melbourne Heart (A-League). But the names work because they reflect the culture - the Swans like to emphasise a fluid, elegant game, for instance, while Collingwood Magpies supporters are easily distracted by shiny things.

If the Redskins were to change their name, it would be easy to pick an aggressive, animalistic name - like Sharks or Dragons - and compromise the team identity.

Melbourne City now, actually.
 
Now we're getting somewhere interesting and worthy of debate. Not whether a name is offensive, but the general topic of changing the names of sports teams and what effect that has.

This, I find, is a cultural matter. As an outsider looking in, the United States is no stranger to 'franchising' teams and has had a long tradition of teams not only changing names, but moving towns too.

Detroit Gems moved to Minneapolis and became the Lakers, before relocating again to Los Angeles. (NBA)

Charlotte Hornets moved to New Orleans becoming the New Orleans Hornets. Charlotte gained a new franchise called the Bobcats. New Orleans Hornets renamed themselves the New Orleans Pelicans, so Charlotte Bobcats became Charlotte Hornets once again. (NBA)

---

Chicago Cardinals moved to St. Louis, before moving again to Phoenix, then Glendale, AZ to become the Arizona Cardinals. (NFL)

Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore, becoming the Ravens. Cleveland was awarded a new Browns franchise, and is considered a 'true' continuation of the original Cleveland Browns. (NFL)

---

Boston Braves moved to Milwaukee, before finally settling in Atlanta. (MLB)

Brooklyn Dodgers moved to San Francisco, while New York Giants moved to San Fransisco. (MLB)

---

San Jose Earthquakes moved to Houston, becoming the Dynamo. San Jose was later awarded a new Earthquakes franchise. (MLS)

It goes on - Wiki

How, as a fan of a relocated team, does one react? Particularly with the Cleveland Browns issue, as this is one of the most controversial. The 'new' 1999 Cleveland Browns are considered a continuation of the Browns who last played in Cleveland in 1996 despite everything to do with that team, the players, the manager, the coaching staff, all of them relocating to Baltimore in time for 1997. I can understand why fans look at at as the same team, but looking at the cold, hard facts it simply isn't true.

In the United Kingdom the mere thought of moving a team to a new city or changing its name is considered treason and will genuinely start mass, sometimes violent, protests. It wasn't always the case; in the embryonic years of professional sports as a discipline, soccer teams frequently changed names (Newton Heath Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway -> Manchester United) (Dial Square -> Royal Arsenal -> Woolwich Arsenal -> Arsenal) (Old King's Scholars -> Chester -> Chester City) and it is still not uncommon for teams to move to a different stadium within the same existing geographical location, but actual relocation and renaming in the modern age is unheard of.

Wimbledon FC moved from their home in Merton, London to Milton Keynes some c.40 miles away in 2003 and the following year were renamed Milton Keynes Dons. A splinter group of fans started their own AFC Wimbledon at the bottom of the league system and despite all players, staff, managers moving to Milton Keynes in 2003, AFC Wimbledon are considered the successor club and even have the 'old' Wimbledon's trophies. MK Dons retained their positions in the league system and national cup competitions, yet are not considered the same team which played in 2002. I am not saying I agree with the move, but in terms of continuity, they are the same team whether one likes it or not.

Should the Washington Redskins ultimately change their name, for whatever reason in the end, fans should be thankful that the team is still in their city because it's not at all rare for teams over there to suddenly uproot and leave fans with nothing. Lest we forget, it was when the Boston Redskins moved to the capital that we got this team in the first place.

---

tl;dr - Never mind whether the name is racist or not, what would a name change do to the fans either way? And be thankful the team is still in DC and not somewhere else.
 
Last edited:
I believe the team is resistant to change the name because of legal reason. If they did voluntarily change the name it would, to some, be admitting wrong doing. There is a line of lawyers waiting for that so that they can file their law suits claiming the team used the name to slur a group of people. A plaintiff probably wouldn't see a penny from said law suit as it would most likely get tossed out of court eventually, but that isn't going to stop the lawyers, they are going to get paid either way.
 
I believe the team is resistant to change the name because of legal reason. If they did voluntarily change the name it would, to some, be admitting wrong doing.

How certain or likely would this be? Let's imagine they had changed their name 10, maybe 20 years ago with no fanfare or publicity. Would the same accusations have been thrown? American sports teams are no strangers to relocation and/or name changes, so it is not something which would be "out of the ordinary".

Although I grant you, doing it under a wave of negative pressure (whether from AstroTurfers or not) won't look good either way.
 
How certain or likely would this be? Let's imagine they had changed their name 10, maybe 20 years ago with no fanfare or publicity. Would the same accusations have been thrown? American sports teams are no strangers to relocation and/or name changes, so it is not something which would be "out of the ordinary".

Although I grant you, doing it under a wave of negative pressure (whether from AstroTurfers or not) won't look good either way.
No if they changed the name out of the blue with none of this hype it wouldn't make the news. It would probably be a locale out cry, but nothing international as it is now. In this case though the lawyers are chomping at the bit for just a slight opening so they cant start filing the law suits. Agreeing to change the name would open them flood gates.
 
It would be amusing if they changed the name because it was controversial and ended up being called the Washington Foreskins.
 
Back